Explanation of the Jodi Arias sentencing hearing

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Good morning:

The jury convicted Jodi Arias of premeditated first degree murder yesterday. Next up is the sentencing. The same jury that convicted her of premeditated murder will decide whether to impose the death sentence.

The hearing is scheduled to start at 1 pm, PDT (4 pm EDT).

Jodi Arias has stated that she wants to be sentenced to death. She has a right to testify and may request that sentence. She may have changed her mind, however.

There is no premeditated murder, no matter how egregious, that automatically results in a death penalty.

Court will reconvene at 1:00 pm PDT for the Eligibility Phase of the trial. This phase is also called the aggravation hearing because the prosecution will have to prove an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The aggravating circumstance alleged in the indictment is that the premeditated murder was “especially cruel.”

The prosecution will probably call the Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy to testify regarding how long the victim remained conscious after she initiated the assault and the extent to which he may have suffered pain and emotional distress before losing consciousness and dying.

The more extreme his suffering and emotional distress, the more likely the jury will decide that the murder was especially cruel.

The defense can call its own expert or rely on cross examining the State’s expert.

Both sides will have an opportunity to argue whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the premeditated murder was especially cruel.

The Court will instruct the jury as follows regarding the meaning of the term “especially cruel.”

The term “cruel” focuses on the victim’s pain and suffering. To find that the murder was
committed in an “especially cruel” manner you must find that the victim consciously suffered
physical or mental pain, distress or anguish prior to death. The defendant must know or should
have known that the victim would suffer.

Potential consequences:

If the State does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance
exists, the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the
possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 [35] years.

If the jury unanimously decides beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance
does exist, each juror will decide if mitigating circumstances exist and then, as a jury, you will
decide whether to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment or death. If the sentence is
life imprisonment then the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment
without the possibility of release from prison, or life imprisonment with the possibility of
release from prison after 25 [35] years.

“Life without the possibility of release from prison” means exactly what it says. The
sentence of “life without possibility of release from prison” means the defendant will never
be eligible to be released from prison for any reason for the rest of the defendant’s life.

If the jury concludes that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the premeditated murder was especially cruel, the sentencing will proceed to the Penalty Phase.

The judge will then read the following instruction to the jury:

While all twelve of you had to unanimously agree that the State proved beyond a
reasonable doubt the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance, you do not need to
unanimously agree on a particular mitigating circumstance. Each one of you must decide
individually whether any mitigating circumstance exists.

You are not limited to the mitigating circumstances offered by the defendant. You must
also consider any other information that you find is relevant in determining whether to
impose a life sentence, so long as it relates to an aspect of the defendant’s background,
character, propensities, record, or circumstances of the offense.

The defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of any mitigating circumstance
that the defendant offers by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, although the
defendant need not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must
convince you by the evidence presented that it is more probably true than not true that such
a mitigating circumstance exists. In proving a mitigating circumstance, the defendant may
rely on any evidence already presented and is not required to present additional evidence.
You individually determine whether mitigation exists. In light of the aggravating
circumstance[s] you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the
mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. “Sufficiently substantial to call for
leniency” means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate, in the
opinion of an individual juror, to persuade that juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison.
Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are of the same
quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for a sentence of death and may instead
vote for a sentence of life in prison. A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence
even if the defendant does not present any mitigation evidence.

A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may
be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to
the assessment of the appropriate penalty. In other words, each of you must determine
whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it
warrants leniency in this case.

The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not
have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the
burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence. It is for you, as jurors, to decide
what you individually believe is the appropriate sentence.

In reaching a reasoned, moral judgment about which sentence is justified and
appropriate, you must decide how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating
factors is when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors and the facts and
circumstances of the case. This assessment is not a mathematical one, but instead must be
made in light of each juror’s individual, qualitative evaluation of the facts of the case, the
severity of the aggravating factors, and the quality of the mitigating factors found by each
juror.

If you unanimously agree there is mitigation sufficiently substantial to call for leniency,
then you shall return a verdict of life. If you unanimously agree there is no mitigation, or the
mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of
death.

Your decision is not a recommendation. Your decision is binding. If you unanimously
find that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, your foreperson shall sign
the verdict form indicating your decision. If you unanimously find that the defendant should
be sentenced to death, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision.
If you cannot unanimously agree on the appropriate sentence, your foreperson shall tell the
judge.

If anyone is interested, Trent´s latest video making a point about GZ’s flashlight, i.e. when did GZ grab it before jumping out of his truck in pursuit of Trayvon or if in his hand already, whey? But as there are many possible answers could be just a wild goose chase.

@gbrbsb. I’m so happy that Trent brought this out. What GZ fails to mention in his numerous stories is important, IMO. Not once does he mention when he dropped the key chain flashlight, the tactical flashlight, nor when Jon took the photo of the back of his head. He omits all of that.

I’ve said for months now that GZ had to have had that tactical flashlight in his hand or lap while following Trayvon in his vehicle.

Maybe too Trayvon took a photo of GZ taunting him, even using the flashlight when doing so.

“…had to have had that tactical flashlight in his hand or lap while following Trayvon in his vehicle.”

Yes, why would you have a flashlight in your hand or lap if you are just on the way to do some shopping… was he carrying a wallet and any cards or money? We know he didn’t use it to look for a house number or street name. Sounds like a neighbourhood watch tool. Sounds like he used it to peer along cut throughs, in porches, behind cars, bushes, etc., or as Trent says, perhaps he used it to write notes about his NW events, suspects etc.

When police search someone in the station and they encounter cash, they count it in front of the person and make a written record of how much cash was there, so that later it cannot be claimed that the police took any of it.

That’s why there is a note of the baggie with the two quarters in it. We know that the police looked in his wallet, because that’s where they found his ccwp. We don’t have to worry about credit cards, because his bank statements show they were maxxed out. So, there was no money available to buy anything at all, except maybe some gum at 711.

Shellie claims that she had gone to eat dinner at her fathers place. Wonder why gz wasn’t welcomed there, after all he needed dinner too. Could he have decided to kill Trayvon as a way to ensure that he’d get 3 square meals one way or another? He was being evicted, the repo men were looking for his vehicles and he had no money to eat, what could be worse? Could he have felt he had nothing to lose?

Nope, somehow I don’t think so. This was more like an initiation than anything else, and it certainly seems from the lies being told, that there were others involved. What they’re roles might have been is open to discussion but others knew things and provided assistance for sure.

Exactly, good point: “Don’t tell anyone who they are and let US find out secretly and use it to terrorize the jurors so eventually there can be either a mistrial or else enough mess to give us a foot in the door to appeal later.”

They use their motions to taint the jury pool, more than half of them are pointless. Notice how they throw irrelevant BS in them? It’s their way of getting stuff out there that they want the public to see that they can’t do any other way.

And the photos don’t show a guy who had his head banged on a sidewalk, despite his protestation to the contrary. Nor do they show a broken nose, but he can paint an Impressionistic painting with a thousand words in the hope that the jury will get confused.

I have to admit that I didn’t like the contradictory argument concerning Benjamin Crump being listed or not listed as witness of the defense’s witness list in Crump’s “respondent motion” to the appellate court compared to Blackwell’s earlier motion. I have to admit that for this legal nitwit Blackwell’s motion was stronger. That new argument felt a bit like what we call procedural error over here. That may well work but as an argument it usually feels weak.

FYI, on an unrelated note Miami defense attorney Roy Black (he got William Kennedy Smith off on the rape charge in the ’90s and later married one of the jurors) has just filed a motion to withdraw as defense for polo magnate Jon Goodman , who was convicted in a drug/drunk driving death , but now is seeking a new trial. Goodman also recently lost a bid to adopt his girlfriend in order to shield his considerable assets.

I think that the State’s Motion to Compel Shellie Zimmerman to testify at deposition’ is a good opportunity to tell the class something about “use- and derivative use immunity” and how the State may overcome a 5th Amendment privilege claim.

In the fine print, you can see that, in order for the jury to be safely anonymous, the trial can’t be TELEVISED, in case someone recognises their faces (or will they be sat behind a screen?).

this is usually accomplished by an agreement that journalists do not EVER focus the camera on the jury area. i cannot even recall any televised trial in which the faces of jurors were shown, so this does not strike me as too far out of the ordinary.

BUT, there is a new twist, a new factor in the equation: Shellie Zimmerman is asserting her rights under the 5th Amendment – NOT spousal privilege. There is a difference between the two (i.e. 5th Amendment Rights and spousal privilege). And that difference is huge in the present case, IMO.

A careful reading of the ‘Motion to Compel’ tells me that Shellie did indeed answer a few questions during the deposition and then asserted the 5th with regard to other questions (unrelated to her current perjury charge).

Shellie does NOT want to incriminate herself. That’s ominous. Something is up. What is it?

Omara always writes up an avalanche of motions that have no substance and are doomed to fail or is using it as a press release for himself, and then after he will blame everyone else for the media storm he created LOL

Omara has been doing that with Robbie The Racist for the past year and a half, and 90% of the media has been them dogging Trayvon and his family

Really no one’s fault that no one supports them and although barely any media is in favor of Trayvon, they get undeniable support from the world with no media effort LOL

This motion is the usual bullcrap that no one has rights except for Fogen, Omara, and Robbie The Racist and they can do whatever to anyone with no backfire

Shellie obviously has a right not to testify but she may be rolling on Fogen LMAO

JUN, I assume you have read the ‘Motion to Compel Shellie Zimmerman to testify at deposition’? That Motion was filed by the State – NOT O’Mara. During a deposition, Shellie answered a few questions and then asserted the 5th Amendment with regard to other questions that followed (unrelated to her current perjury charge). The 5th Amendment protects the individual from self-incrimination. With regard to what other crimes (unrelated to her current perjury indictment) did Shellie sought this protection? Would you like to begin from there (while staying on topic)?

Then JUN, pls. do read FIRST before commenting (in the interest of productive discussions). The State offered Shellie Zimmerman IMMUNITY after she asserted the 5th. Shellie may NOT refuse to testify. We DO know that the information the State seeks from Shellie is unrelated to her perjury charge. That raises a lot of questions we can only but speculate on at this stage. Any thoughts on that (not involving “bull-crap”, effing this effing that, etc.)?

@searchingmind
I’ve spend some time with others on Whonoze’s blog trying to piece together when Shellie and Osterman arrived at the scene and how much time they spend there.

The unofficial claim is that Shellie was having dinner at her father’s place when the incident occurred. After W13 called Shellie around 7:20 pm, she called Mark Osterman in Lake Mary.

Osterman claims he was walking his dog when Shellie called him at 7:30 pm. He went back home got in his car and drove to the r@tl. According to MO, Shellie was waiting outside of the gate. She used her swipe car to open the gate and he followed her in his car. They parked the cars at some distance from where the incident happened.

In his interview MO stated he didn’t talk with GZ in depth. So he was allowed to speak with GZ at the scene.

Cheryl Brown was shopping at Walmart, when the incident happened. Walmart is a 3 minute drive from the Retreat. Her daughter called 911 to report what Austin had seen at 7:19 pm. The call lasted about 2 minutes. The daughter called her mother in a panick, and Cheryl went home right away. When Cheryl arrived at the Retreat, the police had blocked the gates and she had to leave her car on the street and walk into the complex.

Osterman gives very detailed descriptions like Shellie swiping her card, but he fails to mention the police blocking cars from entering the complex. I also found Leland Management’s R@TL site. You can find the Gates PDF here.

Residents can get a remote responder to open the gates or use a 4 digit code on the keypad at the frontgate. Visitors can call the landline of the person they are visiting, and the resident can open the gate by pressing #9 on their phone.

Osterman provides an awfull lot of detail about how he and Shellie entered the complex. His discription however doesn’t appear to match the reality at the gate that evening.

The gates don’t open with a swipe card, police had blocked the gates when MO claims he and Shellie drove through it.

Osterman claims he and Shellie walked back to their cars at 8:10 pm. They went back to Shellie’s place and spend an hour packing and walking the dogs. Osterman said he told Shellie to pack clothes for GZ, because the police would confiscate the clothes he was wearing. They left for the police station after 9pm. Osterman then tells this strange story about his wife calling him that the dog vomited and she was to sick to clean it up. So he went home after taking Shellie to the policestation, swapped his ford 2x for his ford truck, before joining Shellie at the police station.

Serino mentions taking GZ’s clothes after 11 pm. He also said they had to wait for Shellie to return with GZ clothing.

The vehicle tag for the white honda, came back at 8:32 pm. GZ truck at 8:47 pm.

Long story, but I am highly suspicious of MO’s and Shellie’s movements that evening. I think it is possible BdlR began asking questions about where she was, with whom, who she talked to etc. when MOM shot it down.

If I recall Osterman said, either in his book or on tv, that he was behind Shellie at the rear gate and he drafted in behind her there.

As you say, he doesn’t mention that he was on South Oregon, but on Oregon, which is where the front/ north gate is.

We have an idea that GZ’s truck was parked on TTL near the cut through, so where would Shellie be parked that it would take the officer 15 minutes to walk to GZ’s car after recording Shellie’s ?
Could he have been walking and talking? But to who? No record eh?
Osterman? Is that who he was talking to and why Osterman’s car doesn’t show up? Or was Osterman’s car parked in some driveway? It would have gone unnoticed if so.

It sure sounds to me like it’s more likely that Osterman and Shellie were inside the gate before GZ shot Trayvon.

Let’s see, Shellie gets the call at 7:20, she calls MO at 7:30, he has to walk home, get in his car and drive about 12 minutes to get to RATL. Let’s say he walks to his car in 3 minutes so that 15 minutes plus 7:30 or 7:45 is the earliest he could arrive. By that time neither he nor Shellie could get their cars inside, but clearly Shellie has gotten her car inside, but MO’s car is nowhere to be seen. Could MO have left his car at the MI bank and had Shellie pick him up there?

Wait: How did Osterman and Shellie know that Fogen would NEED a change of clothes; he would only need them if he was not actually going to be arrested. They were told that he would not be arrested that night? I am pretty sure SERINO was told Fogen would not be arrested that night. In what order were people told Fogen would not be arrested: Fogen (by Tim Smith), Serino (by Lee or Wolfinger), Shelli (by Fogen or Tim Smith?), Osterman (by Shellie), or some other order or some other arrangement? Hmmmm…

Fantastic work, amsterdam. You have put in a lot of time and hard work!

I was transcribing the CVSA tape early this morning. Here is the part that pertains to W13’s call to Shellie:

Zimmerman: My wife’s a mess.
Singleton: Do you have any kids?
Zimmerman: No. Thank goodness, not yet.
Singleton: What’s she say? that she was at home and wondered why you couldn’t return?
Zimmerman: No. The first man who got there, I thought he was a police officer. And, I asked the police officer if I could call my wife, and he said, “No” so I asked him to call and tell her. So, she knew within five minutes. The eye witness was kind enough to call. She called my buddy Mark that was there.

I think he was already inside the complex before 7 pm. The visitor system works through the telephone network. Had Shellie opened the gate from her home after 7 pm, there would’ve been a telephone record.

I kind of dropped the idea Osterman was there until I read his story. He goes through an awfull lot of trouble explaining how he entered the complex, but his story just doesn’t match the facts.

In the event report it looks like Bernosky was knocking on doors to contact possible witnesses, between the vehicle tag checks. All the addresses are on Retreat View Circle. My guess would be that the white Honda was parked on RVC.

It sure sounds to me like it’s more likely that Osterman and Shellie were inside the gate before GZ shot Trayvon.

I think Shellie was at home and Osterman got there before 7pm when the gates were closed.

Could there be something incriminating about GZ using her gun? Or do her texts and call records show lying under oath, or direct involvement? Or, could she have divorced GZ or was their wedding never legitimated (which might cancel spousal privilege)?

Hmmm. Cerando. The gun thing (ownership, licensing, who was really carrying prior to that night) always has been intriguing. Texts and call records pre/post murder likely will be fascinating, too. If these two weren’t legally wed, am not sure what, if any, Florida common law marriage provisions are in place. A thriller of a trial awaits as Justice for Trayvon comes roaring down the pike.

A’dam, thanks for your very informative post. I think it was Tzar who said something to the effect that something more sinister happened on the night of 26 February 2012, before and thereafter. The whereabouts and activities of Shellie and Mark Osterman prior and after to the killing are still unaccounted for, very much “clocked in darkness” and very relevant in finding out the truth. Such activities might include destruction of- and tampering with evidence, tampering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing justice, aiding and abetting felony, etc. The indicia of that is everywhere. Given that this particular prosecution is the no-bluff, no-nonsense type, I believe it has evidence that Shellie was involved in something concrete and unrelated to the perjury charge, unprotected by spousal privilege and incriminating for GZ, and filed a Motion to Compel her to testify exclusively because of the weight of the information it seeks from her.

I do not know exactly what info the prosecution is after. But I do know this: anything that forces Shellie (or anyone for that matter) to plead the 5th even after statutory immunity has been offered, is ominous. There is trouble ahead. I just don’t like the suspense.

“What the general public has to remember and the media has to remember is that there is a lot we cannot release by law,” – Angela Corey.

My guess is, because they believe that the prosecution can’t discover who might have helped gz do what, they’ll be able to show that something was impossible for gz to accomplish by himself.

But, I think that plan will collapse because I think it will be proved that gz had helpers on board. Once they are brought out of the dark, gz will rue the day O’Mara filed that motion.

O’Mara has already made a plea deal impossible, because, if the prosecution does a deal, witness testimony will be lost forever. Then MOM will come back and file for an immunity hearing and who knows what evidence will be needed and what will still exist? Now the SP has no choice but to hold a full trial and bring all the evidence to record. O’Mara keeps selling whup tickets that gz’s ass can’t cash! 😆

Thanks Searchingmind,
I don’t have the legal knowledge to recognize how significant her refusal to testify is.
I don’t know what they are hiding, but their story doesn’t add up.
I think you are right about the prosecution, they don’t bluff.

You know, Mary, if jurors (a) take a field trip of the Retreat at Twin Lakes, then (b) listen to the NEN call, (c) watch the video reenactments of GZ, (d) bring GZ’s interrogation by Singleton and Serino into the equation and (e) try to match everything up, GZ’s stories will implode (without outside help). O’Mara’s Motion baffles me and I THINK that the State will gladly stipulate to it (with one or two caveats here and there). Honestly, I do not see how any of the Motions filed by O’Mara recently can benefit GZ.

Searching Mind~ And yet, for all of their illegal interference, there is still more than enough to hang GZ (figuretively). Fornesic evidence IF you bother to look for it, is getting harder and harder to hide. You’d think after a few seasons of CSI they’d learn that by now. 😉

@ Searching. IMO Shellie is being very careful because of the perjury charge against her. No she does not want to incriminate herself, as she is in enough trouble already. She’s also getting advice from her attorney. If she was involved in Trayvon’s murder in any way, I’m sure she is scared to death about now. Maybe she’ll throw fogen under the bus.

@ racer. So many things just doesn’t add up. She is the only one that has been silent. Well, she does have the perjury charge to contend with, but still. She doesn’t even go to court to support her husband. What happen to “stand by your man”.
She certainty stood by him on the jail house calls.

Anyway, something smells fishy, and I think everything will come out in the wash. BDLR has got some laundry to do.

Mary Davis~ She stood by her man, back when she thought they’d “live the great life together” with lots of other people’s money. NOW she sees NO money and years of prison for her and DECADES of prison for him.

No bout adoubt it. I’d bet Bernie got to asking how she got in the RATL if the gates were blocked by the police. or, does she know they have the phone records and GPS markers, shooting down her story she was dinner with her dada. Something along those lines.

She’s lying and the phone records will prove it. I’d bet that Bernie asked her something that clicked with her and Moron O and they knew Bernie and fooling around and knows a tone more than has been released. Now she see’s more perjury coming…..

I’ll take the 5th…….sorry, You’ll need more than a 5th girl…..an entire bar’s worth maybe do it.

Lots of fun eh? Shellie eating dinner at dads while Hubby stays home and starves, planning a shopping trip to target with two quarters in a plastic baggie? Can he even get a candy bar for dinner? Why is everybody lying if they haven’t done anything wrong and have nothing to hide? Now Shellie is taking the 5th? About having dinner with her father? I don’t understand, what could possibly have been on the menu that she’d have to take the 5th over dinner? Hahaha…

Next thing you know Osterman will be taking the fifth over walking his dog. What gives?

>> Apparently, no one objected to the deposition being taken before they all showed up, it got underway, and Shellie testified for 20 minutes.

>> Then suddenly they’re objecting to it based on two things they knew, or should have known, long before everyone showed up for the deposition.

>> Ultimately, Shellie’s lawyer (after some coaching from MOM/West, perhaps) declares that, because she (1) wasn’t listed as a defense witness and (2) had a pending case, she would assert her 5th Amendment right and refuse to answer any additional questions. (This position doesn’t make sense to me. How can you assert the 5th in response to questions that haven’t even been asked yet?)

It’s kind of a bummer that BDLR has more honor and integrity than MOM and West – because if it was a MOM/West motion, they would have TOLD us all what the testimony was that lead to the abrupt halting of the deposition!

1) she can only claim spousal privilege in relation to GZ; pleading the 5th covers everything including that
2) they would want to know about
* anyone giving a tip off (eg Osterman)
* removing the truck and anything interesting in it (eg alcohol)
3) by taking the 5th, none of this appears on the deposition, therefore GZ can breathe easy she hasn’t flipped on him
4) that still won’t prevent her from saying it AT THE TRIAL
5) she was only offered immunity re anything she might say about these things…. in real life she may already have a good deal re the perjury charge if she does talk (in court).

Shellie and Osterman were probably standing right there.
————————————————————————–
“What the general public has to remember and the media has to remember is that there is a lot we cannot release by law,”
– Angela Corey.
========================================

A careful reading of the ‘Motion to Compel’ tells me that Shellie did indeed answer a few questions during the deposition and then asserted the 5th with regard to other questions (unrelated to her current perjury charge).

good catch! that one escaped me, which explains why you are a lawyer and i’m merely an eager student 🙂

Well, let’s see… If Shellie used her code on the gate much, much earlier, or MO used his code and came in much, much earlier, then they were probably both inside while gz was hunting for Trayvon, making it more than just one against one. Hardly a wonder then, that Trayvon was unable to escape.

Worse yet, because they’d lied to conceal their involvement, they’d now become accessories to murder, eh? It won’t take much more to break before the SP can no longer go with 2nd Degree, but will have little choice but to seek a grand jury and ask for Murder 1. If that happens, O’Mara, gz, Shellie, Osterman and Taaffe’s bowels will let loose one hellified release. I don’t think any of them bargained for a life in an 8 by 12. John could also get a piece of this action as well.

I think Racerodig’s predictions may be coming true. The net may be beginning to fill with more fish.

I’d say “…just got off the phone….” but I won’t. But just last night, I had some e-mail’s back & forth on that and a few other topics. Now, my guys have not been directly involved for a bit but keep their finger on the pulse.

Notice the demeanor of Bernie…..more business like than ever. I believe that he had a complete handle on everyone’s whereabouts and at what time that night. The sheer number of questions is staggering. The swipe card issue, I’m glad was brought up by someone else. What cards…..

I’ll state my opinion again….Fogen had company that night, and probably more than one person. Phone records….GPS markers.

I believe one of those topics is what brought her deposition to a screaming halt. Picture O’ Mara hearing any of that for the 1st time since it’s a foregone conclusion they don’t tell O’ Mara squat.

Yep. To be honest, I wish I could say a few things about a few things that I do know. The world will collapse on Fogen in say, about 5 weeks, once the trial is underway. Jury selection starts the 10th, hell starts about a week later.

Oh my, when the trial gets underway the Zids are going to be screaming at their tv and computer screens because all of their “evidence” isn’t ever going to see the light of day at the trial.

So they’ll be screaming “What’s wrong with O’Mara, he should have done this, he should have said that… what about this? Why none of that? He’s throwing the trial, it’s stacked, he’s a turncoat a traitor etc.!” Hahaha… If the Zids start rioting so much the better, since the National guard can come in with buses and sweep them all up in one fell swoop. Hey, it’s a great time of year to go camping, eh? Hahaha…

Well, now we’ve learned that there were videos of Trayvon on his phone and they have cd’s of them. I guess they’ll be in one of the coming evidence dumps. Or maybe O’Mara has them already but doesn’t want to release them because they show that Trayvon was just a little puppy and not the ferocious dragon gz would like him to be.

I’m sure Sundance Crackpot will “…just get off the phone…” and tell the world that the reason Trayvon allegedly wrote WTF on a locker is the start of his “Major Crime Spree” thereby it’s all his fault.

That was really suspicious… The policeman was supposedly watching a cctv and saw Trayvon hiding in an off limits area. We know that cctv systems record what’s on camera, especially school PD camera systems. So this officer says, Trayvon was hiding in this prohibited area then he suddenly steps out and scroll “WTF” on a school door.

Is there a tape of these claims? Of course not! So why are we being told about them? Answer: The cop needed an excuse to search Trayvon’s backpack and so, by saying that he witnessed this stuff “yesterday” and on cctv, he escapes having to show the tape and he explains why he wasn’t seen out and about in the claimed area, where he’d have had to admonish Trayvon, since the area was restricted.

So he’s using bogus prima facie evidence to discover a bogus burglary tool and a bogus pile of “loot”. A screwdriver and costume jewelry became the basis of infraction. As well as a claim of stale evidence, that also became the basis of infraction. What’s wrong with this school? Can’t they do anything to prevent bogus police claims from harming student records? Do they care? Of course not, which is why I want Tracey Martin and Sabrina to sue, sue, suc, the MDSPD and the School District, to give the a good reason to begin caring about the students rights and defend them against bogus claims of infraction. 30 to 40 million should do it.

The Casey Anthony jurors names didn’t remain sealed for that long. The public has the right to know which degenerates acquitted her. That way we can make their lives a miserable hell. I heard one of those idiots fled Florida and moved up here to Michigan because of the day to day harassment.

I don’t agree that anyone should ostracize or punish jurors for making their decisions, even if they do what is widely regarded as “wrong.” Judges make wrong and even corrupt and deliberately wrongful decisions constantly and the system protects them vigorously. Jurors should not have to face the possibility that ANY decision they lawfully make can be used to harm them in their out-of-court lives, PERIOD. The entire jury system would be ruined if that happened.

There are old cases from the 1700s and 1800s where a judge would instruct a jury how to decide a case and one where a judge actually held the jury in contempt and forced them at gunpoint into a room where they were held without food and water and threatened with imprisonment if they did not render the decision the judge wanted. This kind of madness could come back to visit us if jury harassment and jury punishment were to become the vogue.

Did you notice that their Exhibit C actually IS a Treeslum article?! It’s hyping racism, and cites activities of over a year ago — pre-arrest efforts insisting on just an chance for justice for Trayvon in a court of law.

He is pretty much saying that everyone else in the world has no rights, except for Fogen, Omara, and their sleezy gang

Omara and Robbie The Racist goes on TV for 90% of the media news of this issue but anyone else saying anything, is considered prejudicial

Omara, Fogen, Robbie The Racist can call Trayvon a risky black, a thug, frame him for attacking Fogen, call Trayvon suspicious, call him a fucking coon/punk but god forbid anyone say anything about them

WTF does the NBPP have anything to do with Fogen’s guilt or not? If he has issue with them, then take it up with them

Everyone in the USA has the fucking right to come together in peace and march, and state their opinion, and fight for the liberty and rights we all have

Pretty much everything in the motion is just Omara wanting to stalk jurors by getting their private information or deprive everyone else’s rights in this country, concerning this

And again with the stupid NBC shit… you have problems with them deal with them after the trial as it has no effect on the trial because the real full tape will be played in court and it will show that Fogen did offer Trayvon’s race without being provoked for a racial response – the dispatcher asked if they were by the clubhouse, to which Fogen replied that “yes, and he’s got his hands in his waist band and he’s a black male, something is wrong with him”

Are courts allowed to shred motions? This one deserves to be burned

Everything I want to say will come out in court anyways so no need to bother

Well stated. This jack ass Moron O’ Makenosense should just come out and say “If this Cunningham kid would have just minded his own damn business, then my client would have gotten away with this. And that Team Trayvon……I wish they would just stop and let my clients brother talk, after all, he was there that night”

Another wasted of time. This case has some international and national attention, but nothing like a case that has any real risks associated with it. I mean, the other trial didn’t have a sequestered jury did it? O’Mara’s dreaming. Like this is some big mafia case where we’re going to have juror intimidation and or jury fixing.

Heck, gz hasn’t even had paint splashed on him. Nobody’s been threatened and no one is after the jury. No, what O’Mara wants is to keep people from seeing the jurors faces when he flops around in front of them like a fish out of water. O’Mara’s been reading this board were we’ve been talking about seeing how the jurors react to him telling them baldfaced lies and getting caught. So now he’s going to try and convince the Judge that this is John Gotti on trial.

What the judge should do is fine O’Mara 40 k for releasing Tracey Martins address!

I don’t know if O’Mara reads the blogs, but I do know that some Zidiots take screen shots of them and say they are sending to O’Mara. Some Zidiots also tweet links to O’Mara and Junior of articles and comments on this and my blog.

@ MMPat – You’re near Manitou Springs? Are you familiar with the Manitou Arts Theatre (“MAT”)? (Now, the Millibo Arts Theatre now.) A guy I knew in college is the owner / clown. He taught me to juggle beer bottles.

What a bunch of pointless posturing … since much of this stuff is in place anyway, even in Florida’s Sunshine. (Of course there’s less protection for any jury now that any anyone can access Seminole County property appraiser records. Renters now have more privacy than owners. )

Whenever I read one of Mark O’Mara’s motions I can almost feel the slime oozing off it. This motion is classic and no different. MOM seems to have read the Constitution, but does not understand it. All American citizens have the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment protections-not just GZ. GZ is on trial for 2nd degree murder because he did not understand that Trayvon Martin had those rights because he was 1) an American citizen and 2) an invited guest of a legal resident of the gated community 3) doing nothing wrong.

If anyone has sensationalized this case in the media from the very beginning it was in fact Mark O’Mara. I agree with BDLR. There has not been a television interview or newspaper interview (especially with the Orlando Sentinel) he did not gravitate to. On the other hand, I can only find 1 or 2 impromptu interviews which BDLR has done immediately after a motions hearing. And he did not say very much when he did talk. He is prepared to do his talking in Court-and we have seen how spectacular that will be.

This 46 page “Motion” seems to be 3 ½ pages of actual substance, if you can call it that; 12 ½ pages of gibberish summarizing what other people said as they were exercising their 1st Amendment rights; the last 30 pages seem to be taken straight out of the Outhouse’s scrapbook-with pictures of Jesse Jackson, Jaime Foxx, Gabrielle Union, President Obama, Asst AG for Civil Rights Thomas Perez, Congresswoman Corrine Brown, Orlando Sentinel articles with which the Outhouse obviously agrees, CNN articles about protests held before GZ had been arrested. There is also an article where many celebrities called for justice on social media for a teen who had been killed on his way back from 7-11 and his killer had not yet been arrested or jailed or indicted. Apparently Mr. O’ Mara does not believe any of these people have 1st Amendment rights. Or the right to return from 7-11 without being interrogated. Or that Trayvon had the right of due process and should not have been deprived of his right to life and liberty. Perhaps Mr. O’Mara does not believe that a client who goes along with a lie at a bond hearing and manages in his judge shopping to get rid of three judges can have a fair trial. And MOM apparently is not satisfied that Trayvon’s civil rights were violated-he wants to put the jury in his own little cocoon-and everyone who supports a prison term for GZ in his little box so he can hand out rights as he sees fit.

In Mr. O’Mara’s bizzaro world the jury must be protected from the same people that supporters of his client contributed almost half a million dollars. This would have been the motion to prove once and for all the threat level. Mr. O’Mara only had two (that’s 1…2) exhibits: A picture of a man holding the infamous New Black Panther Party’s Wanted Dead or Alive poster for the killer of Trayvon Martin-before the killer was in fact charged with 2nd degree murder. The fact of the matter is the NBBP is NOT affiliated with the original Black Panther Party and on a good day probably could not claim 1,000 members nationwide They have established none of the programs that the BPP is known for, and probably are more symbol than substance. There is a vanguard that apparently goes from crisis to crisis. Shortly after the poster was touted to the media, one of their leaders tried to sell his gun at a pawn shop in Georgia and was arrested because he had a felony record. I understand when they parade around with their guns they are unloaded. The 2nd threat O’Mara cites is a poorly written and misspelled one-paragraph note which came from “Bronx, New York” which called GZ and his supporters “bastereds” [this is way it’s spelled in the letter]. Looks like a teen could have written it. It was sent to MOM’s office.

I do agree that the jury should be insulated-probably for the duration of the trial. However, I am more worried about the contact they will endure from the Defense “team”, because it is obvious from this motion not only will MOM, West, the unpaid interns, but also the Outhouse have access to all personal and professional information on the jurors. It’s always the fox in the henhouse you have to worry about, isn’t it?
I have to now go and take a shower after reading all 46 pages of this slime.

Bet he’s run out of funds and has been reduced to piggybacking on the State’s!

For a few moments I contemplated what reciprocal discovery GZ might have. If O’Mara got anything directly from Facebook or Twitter for DeeDee and/or Trayvon, he would need to turn that over to the State. What else is there? It’s not as if GZ has medical records supporting he had a concussion and a broken nose. That is all of GZ’s story in a nutshell that he hopes proves self-defense.

@Xena
Yes, to be sure he was always going to have to piggyback on the State’s which goes against him. So except for a few “good character” witnesses such as the Ostermans (ha), Taffe (ha ha), his parents (ha ha ha), Oliver (ha ha ha ha) and bro (ha ha ha ha ha) none of whom he will be able to use unless the State opens the door and if it does he’s f*****, and if he opens the door he’s f*****, so unless he can call up Santa Theresa and the Almighty he ain’t got nothing to counter zilch.

@gbrbsb. I just re-listened to O’Mara’s press conference after his motion for a continuance was denied by the court. O’Mara has actually done very little to work on building GZ’s defense. He is all over the place hoping to have the charge dismissed due to some conspiracy theory. Like attorney Crump said, it’s going to be a long, hot summer.

GZ should take a clue from Jodi Arias; i.e., demonizing the victim works against the defendant.

O’Mara has actually done very little to work on building GZ’s defense.

To be fair Xena, exactly what “defence” would it be you think MOM should have been building? The defence has what it has which is… well, what it has: a lightly bloody nose; a few scratches; a NEN call assenting “ok” when Sean tells him “we don’t need you to do that; a 911 call in which two voices are heard, and his written and verbal statements in which he claims he acted in self defence. All of this existed by the end of February. IMO the only chance GZ has will be either with Jury selection and/or the prosecution failing to prove some of the difficult bits BARD.

To be fair Xena, exactly what “defence” would it be you think MOM should have been building?

For one, O’Mara should have been working to analyze the clubhouse videos. Two, he should have contacted someone to see if the cleaning swaps used on GZ were retained to determine whether Trayvon’s DNA was on GZ’s face. IOWs, everything that the State has to convict GZ, O’Mara should have been working to get evidence challenging the results.

“To be fair Xena, exactly what “defence” would it be you think MOM should have been building?”

That said, I’m not convinced there was a defence MOM could build with what they have, i.e.: GZ’s statements (verbal, written, video and audio) don’t add up together or with any imaginable timeline so the only chance there is to explain discrepancies as the normal confusion from the “life changing” event; complex clubhouse videos with more than one interpretation; the swabs, if not already in police custody, would have been long gone by the time MOM took over,… etc. etc. etc.

IMO, unless there is concrete evidence we haven’t seen yet (GPS data, text messages, CCTV images, witnesses, etc.) the only chances GZ has of an acquittal (I don’t rule out a verdict of manslaughter instead of M2 ) are based on either one or more of the following: a biased and/or racist jury like the one in the Joe Horn SYG case; the prosecution not surmounting the BARD threshold; the 911 tape not being conclusive enough; or experts supporting GZ’s claim to fear of death or great bodily harm, i.e. medical experts to testify in respect of TBI of the kind Natasha Richardson died of, whereby any blunt trauma to the head, even if slight and even if on a soft surface (NR’s was on snow) and even if with no external injury, can prove fatal. And for the record as I am sure you know I am not routing for him to get off on any of these because I believe him dangerous and guilty, at very least of manslaughter, but as it stands I am sadly still not 100% convinced that, with the system as it is, he won’t.

Gbrbsb- excellent post. My only disagreement is with the Joe Horn example. His case never even went to trial. He was no-billed by the Grand Jury (of grand racists, to be sure) but there was no trial. This happened in my neck if the woods. Believe me, I was livid! I agree with your other assessments except you’ve forgotten the forensic evidence. No DNA found on Trayvon. How would he die from a blow to the head if no such blows were exchanged? A better case to read is the Raul Rodriguez murder trial in Houston Texas. Again, in my neck of the woods. He was on his cell phone as well as videotaped his encounter. He was found guilty even though he also used SYG as a defense.

As things stand the SP has more than enough good evidence that will stand up, to gain a conviction for M2. The only question the jury will have is, why did they not go for M1.

Perhaps you’re confusing yourself, you see, while you might think that the 911 tape or the NEN call tape has to be unequivocal towards guilt, the fact is they don’t even matter when it comes to the matter of guilt. They add some dimensions to the trial, they fill in some background and provide a clue as to who gave whom the cause to fear for their own safety. But in the end, as far as proving M2, these things do not matter.

You see, the charge M2 says that “self defense” means that the shooter was continuously under threat of lethal assault, which could only be dealt with by taking the shot.

The autopsy report refutes that the shooter was under any lethal assault at the time he took the kill shot. And, while it shows that gz was not under lethal assault, it also strongly suggests that, gz shot a person who was not resisting him at all, except perhaps trying unsuccessfully to withdraw.
=================================

Hey, let’s start another thread:

Shellie went off to have dinner at her fathers house, leaving bread winner gz behind, without money to starve?
How come Mr. “I’d die for gz”, didn’t invite them both to dinner at his place? Rent-a-Friend was of no help and Taaffe, obviously didn’t want to hear gz’s problems. So what kind of friends did gz have really?

No money, no dinner invitations, a wife on the run? How come gz couldn’t have dinner at Shellie’s father’s, wasn’t he welcomed?
No good paying job, no degree, behind on his rent, no money, maxxed out credit cards, behind on his car payments with only .50 cents cash on hand and no dinner, his life seems a terrible mess, eh? If anyone was suspicious that night it was gz, who probably should have been home studying instead of out prowling the streets with a gun.

Oh he was out to shoot someone without a doubt….I see no 180 in my stand…..

I’ve mentioned before a guy I used to work with over 30 yrs ago…….His dream was to have the opportunity to shoot someone….whether in a holdup or what ever…….His greatest desire….spoke of it often..”If I would have been there” type shit.

Last count…and this is over 30 yrs ago…he had over 175 firearms….gunnut?….Yeah…

MMP~ Ok, I asked before; why NOT the black ones? Sure, they’re cute with tufty ears and all, but a squirrel is a squirrel right? Do they taste different? Is it against the law? Are they endangered? My curiosity is eatin me up!

LOL! OK I can dig that! I love all the predator birds. I was shocked to have seen a bald eagle near my rather well-populated subdivision! Once I saw a sharp-shinned hawk devouring a baby bird on my back fence. My cats and I watched in fascination. My spouse yelled at me to stop being so morbid! LOL!

MMP~ I am inclined to agree with you. Life in prison would be the ultimate punishment for gz. Total obscurity with his case, and LOTS of fun in the GP. AND, for some people’s peace of mind, he’d have YEARS to reflect… or not.

I don’t discount anything until I have good and sufficient reason to do so. I may not advocate for M1, because I don’t see evidence strong enough to make it a practical charge. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t enough evidence to suspect it. For example the questions surrounding MO and SZ’s appearance at the scene, lends itself to a question of intentions, although not very strongly so, but then, there are a host of weak connections that could support a M1 if they gelled.

As unlikely as it seems, the suspension at school in Miami is a precursor to this killing in Sanford. If the sloppy and suspect “investigations” had not happened, that lead to the suspension, Trayvon would never have appeared in Sanford at all. So, even thought it might seem a far fetched review, I’d want to see that this officer Dunn had other black children in his sights for harassment as well, and therefore wasn’t just solely focused on Trayvon. Otherwise, I’d want to look at the records to see if there were any MDSPD/SPD/Sanford connections. Or, at least if there were, they didn’t connect closely with any of the players in this case. Of course, if you don’t look you’re guaranteed to find nothing. The question is, what might you find if you looked? You could still find nothing of course, but gee, what could it mean if you found something?

@racerrodig. Jodi Arias is a person I could analyze for months. She doesn’t think much of herself. High school dropout (got her GED while in jail awaiting trial); worked as a server; no successful accomplishments in life. So, she meets Travis and according to his Mormon faith, he introduces her to Mormonism. She accepts, converts.

Then Jodi went all out to show those Mormon men that they were no better than her. Jodi Jezebel became the accuser of the brethren while being the initiator of their temptation and willing participant. It’s bad for them, but good for her.

Travis is not impugned by her claims. Rather, Jodi is exposed as the whore she is.

Of course Xena, at the time he felt what more did he need? Knowing that the Chief and the Prosecutor Wolfinger were on his side? He certainly wouldn’t have wanted his wounds professionally examined and Xrays taken, and certainly not tox screen.

These two, falling so easily into the influence of some unknown quantity, should not have their pensions, since it bespeaks that these two never performed the services to the public, that the public was either entitled to or expected, they always played favorites.

And I’d like to know what in the heck is a “legitimate threat”… or better said, is there any such thing as an “illegitimate” one?

On the other hand anonymous juries are the only ones here. Jurors don’t know what case they will sit on until they are called by number into court from the jury pool waiting room. There they are sworn to secrecy forever, i.e. never to discuss the details of the case, names of other jurors, etc. with anyone or they will be held in contempt of court. It is also a criminal offence for a anyone to elicit information from them so no interviews with the press afterwards. That is a really anonymous jury.

No, it’s not a criminal offense to be interviewed by press afterward, although you are correct about jurors not knowing what case they’ll sit on , if any, until called by number into court. The bit about the secrecyisn’t correct either. Once a verdict is rendered , jurors are free to discuss what they thought personally, what others as a whole thought, what differences cropped up during deliberations, and on and on. Doesn’t mean they should, or always do, but it does happen with frequency, and no charges are forthcoming because it’s allowable. .

@Trained Observer
Sorry TO, mea culpa. I was referring to juries in the UK as a contrast with those in the US. My mistake as in the first line of my comment I should have written:

“…anonymous juries are the only ones HERE IN THE UK.”

as I should and usually do as not everyone is aware where “here” is for me.

Yes, we have very different systems and you won’t find jurors commenting over here even after a trial, (unless with really close family which they shouldn’t as it still carries a prison sentence albeit I’m sure it happens), so nobody ever knows who sat on a jury. And with the clever trick of making it a criminal offence for anyone to try to obtain information from a juror about a trial, voting, etc. press interviews, publication, etc. are nigh impossible unless the person and juror don’t mind going to prison.

IMO, Bernie should bring up that Omara, Fogen, and Robbie The Racist are responsible for about 90% of the media circus surrounding this, so if they are unhappy about being sequestered, they can look at the defense table

The Motion for “anonymous” jury came as a surprise to me because I would have expected it to come from the prosecution. If I am not mistaken, the prosecution has fought doggedly to protect the identities of civilians involved in this case – given what happened to W#, the wrong DeeDees, etc. I think the prosecution will (with a couple of caveats) stipulate to the Motion. That Motion is a double edged sword without any predictable clear advantage for the defense and more likely to benefit the integrity of the process and essentially the prosecution.

And then the jury can see how ridiculous it is that Fogen didn’t know the name of the street up ahead. And how Trayvon may have gotten confused and turned around as he was being hunted down like a fox by a slobbering hound.

I can just hear it: “He said, ‘you got me’ and he leaped up and twirled around. Flames came out of his ears so I KNEW he had been influenced by Satan. He ran 40 feet and then flung himself down while cursing. Someone came out with a flashlight and said, ‘I’ll call 911’ and I said, ‘No, fall on your knees and invoke God’s protection because we are engaged in the great fight between good and evil here and I need your help with this guy,’ and then I spread out his horns — uh — hands because when he was hitting me it felt like there was something in his hands, and then I was terrified…”

There is some interesting information in this motion we didn’t know about.

Mrs. Zimmerman had contact with Defendant and other witnesses before and after the murder, responded to the murder scene, and was present when Defendant made statements to witnesses about his contact with and shooting of Trayvon Martin.

@malisha
WOW was exactly what I thought. We don’t know if these witnesses were the Osterman’s after the fact, but I am convinced Shellie and Osterman spend a long time at the scene talking to neighbors and potentially witnesses. Osterman admits he was able to talk with GZ at the scene.
Why don’t we have the videos from the dashcams? Sound is also recorded, I would love to see and hear who was interacting with GZ while he was waiting in Smith’s car.

Well at least it shelves the endless speculation about SZ position since her name appeared on the State’s witness list, i.e. whether she had flipped. Apparently she was subpoenaed and is now so unwilling she will have to be compelled.

Does anyone else find strange the part about SZ being present when GZ:

“made statements to witnesses about his contact with and shooting of Trayvon Martin”

.

Strange because once GZ was handcuffed and placed in the police car, which if I recall correctly was pretty quick, I assumed he would have been incommunicado so others, including his wife, could not talk to him. Indeed an officer refused his request to call his wife so what would be the point if he was allowed to talk to her face to face? Or could this be referring to the next day or even later? But that’s strange too as by the next day GZ and wife disappeared off with MO and his wife never to return to RATL again? Or could it be he saw these witnesses at RATL before or after the re-enactment? So many questions…

“made statements to witnesses about his contact with and shooting of Trayvon Martin”

i do not think this refers to eye witnesses, rather anyone on the state’s or defence’s witness list — this would include the ostermans and his own family members, for example. such conversations would not be subject to spousal privileged, if i understand everything correctly.

I think you are probably on track faux but IMO there could be problems with the spousal privilege. I recall boar-de-laze explaining that with a conversation between spouses heard by third parties or a conversation of one spouse with third parties heard by the other spouse, the third parties would be called to testify not the spouses, presumably because:

Unless the prosecution has a recording proving that the conversation took place and that it was heard by third parties, i.e. a “public” communication for which spousal privilege would not apply, or unless third parties present were willing to testify:

a) that the conversation took place, and
b) what was actually said,

it would be useless calling an unwilling spouse to testify as without the testimony of third parties or recorded proof how would the State prove:

a) that the conversation took place, and
b) if it did that third parties actually heard what was said

Therefore without the testimony of third parties (or a recording) the State would be unable to defeat the spousal privilege so it would be a private conversation between two spouses and therefore privileged.

Of course it could be they are referring to conversations MO claims he had with GZ in his book, but unless MO says in his book that SZ was present, or MO or SO turn state witnesses, it would be difficult for the State to prove SZ was present or heard what was said. Unless of course they trip up under cross in which case anything is possible.

I think the “trick” is in the Leland Management documents supplied by amsterdam who has been digging ferociously. I’ve added his post, down thread, to my master revisable timeline (yeah, I read ahead on the blog because while searching for a link his post caught my attention.)

But, I think it has to do with Shellie and Osterman, obviously she didn’t swipe in with her card, as Osterman claims. Worse, it seems that the gate was blocked by time he could have arrived from else wheres. With Shellie notified at 7:20 and him getting the call 10 minutes later, there’s no way he could arrive from Lake Mary, at least 12 minutes away, by 7:30pm. Even 7:42 is unlikely, and where is Shellie’s fathers house located? So, 7:50 on is more likely the time they’d arrive if they’re telling the truth.

But there’s a problem. Gate operations, code ins are stored/recorded. Osterman, I’ve read somewhere, had keys to GZ’s house, if so, then he probably had his own entrance code, or GZ’s to use as well. My guess is this is what peaked the interest of the SP over Shellie and Osterman’s movements that night.

I think Osterman left his truck in someone elses driveway, which is why it wasn’t noticed. While Shellie’s was parked on the street. If so, Osterman did not want to remove his truck from the scene, so he rode with Shellie to the station, then she took him over to his place where he pick up his wife’s vehicle. That might explain the strange timing of Shellie arriving with the change of clothes. Covering MO’s tracks. So that’s my guess for now.

Shellie is not asserting spousal privilege. She asserted- and is still asserting her rights under the Fifth Amendment. The difference is very significant. If certain conditions are met to satisfy the demands of the Fifth Amendment, Shellie may be compelled to testify.

@SearchingMind
I know SZ is so far asserting 5th Amendment so you’ve lost me completely.

In my first comment of the thread under which your reply nests I make no reference to spousal privilege whatsoever so don’t think your reply can be in response to that. On the other hand, my only other comment of the thread was in reply to Faux’s response to me in which she referred to conversations with/before third parties not being protected by spousal privilege so 5th Amendment was NOT the issue discussed there either.

“(…). I think you are probably on track faux but IMO there could be problems with the spousal privilege.”

I do not believe there will be problems with spousal privileges, nor was any asserted by Shellie Zimmerman with regard to “conversations with/before third parties”. Shellie did assert the 5th Amendment with regard to those “conversations”. As such the 5th Amendment should have been the issue discussed there, NOT spousal privilege (as you opined).

There appears to be a misunderstanding. The quote of mine you use in your reply is from my 2nd post in this thread, which, as I explained in my previous reply to you was in reply to Faux, who brought up spousal privilege in her reply to me, so I was simply giving her my understanding of BDL’s statement in respect of spouses being called to testify to conversations heard by third parties:

And, if the communication was made in the hearing of a third party, so clearly not intended to be private, the third party will be called to testify — not the spouse.

I did NOT opine whether or not SZ had or would invoke spousal privilege, indeed my reply was meant to be more in general, although I am aware I did apply it to the case in my last paragraph so no need to remind me.

On the other hand:

1. As I noted in my previous reply, in my 1st post on the thread I made no mention whatsoever of spousal privilege so your “correcting” me on that post of mine did not make sense, at least to me.

2. In my reply to you I never said I had NOT discussed spousal privilege with Faux merely that the 5th Amendment was not what was we were discussing so that IMO your “correcting” me did not appear relevant to that post of mine either.

3. Lastly, as I noted in my previous reply to you, I am fully aware SZ invoked the 5th and NOT spousal privilege (albeit who knows if she may invoke it later or GZ invoke it against should the State’s motion be successful), and that BDLR’s motion is to compel SZ to testify, I was, however, unaware we were limited to discussing as per a certain order, i.e. as you say:

“As such the 5th Amendment should have been the issue discussed there, NOT spousal privilege (as you opined).”

Because should a poster reply to me with an issue I have an opinion about, unless the professor informs me to the contrary, I see no reason why I should not reply to them and opine about what they have put forward, as it is their prerogative to ignore me or reply as they chose.

@amsterdam1234
Yep, it appears not, but then MO being a former police officer and at the time an Air Marshall perhaps his old SPD buddies might have allowed him more leeway than they would other people like his wife or witnesses around.

Well remember, Joe Oliver said Fogen cried for three days about killing Trayvon Martin. But then we saw a few videos of him within the three said days and he did NOT look like he had been crying. AND he didn’t say to Singleton, Serino or Erwin, “I have been crying constantly” and he did not report that to his doctor or PA, either.

Heck on Hannity he chuckled about the killing, no tears there. In fact he said that even though he now knew that Trayvon was not a thug, but just an innocent child trying to get home with some snacks he had purchased, gz insisted that he’d do it all again if given the chance.

gz admitted that he wasn’t out looking for thieves he was out look for a young black male to kill, criminal or not!

If I were Arias’ attorneys I would have asked for an emergency continuance to (a) deal with the effects of their client’s insane statement that has been publicized all over the country; and even more important, (b) have her thoroughly evaluated by a team of psychiatrists/psychologists/etc.

Of course, if I were Arias’ attorneys I would have objected like all Hell broke loose to her being questioned by the judge with the JURY’S questions and I would have prevented the press from having access to her in the holding cell too! But then again, her lawyers were doing many peculiar things. Maybe they wanted a trial so full of error that there could be hope for appeal.

Hey LooLoo, where did you get “questionable Jewish ancestry” for Fogen? I protest. I don’t think he had ANY — much less any “questionable” Jewish ancestry.

Zimmerman does not come from the Hebrew language. It comes from the German language. Some German Jews TOOK the name during the period of time when Jews were welcome in Germany. Ten generations back those folks did not have that name.

Malisha. I referred to Jr’s “questionable Jewish” heritage because of the numerous comments from racists that are constantly searching for reasons to hate and discriminate. I KNOW they’re not of Jewish ancestry because Sr says they’re not. I was being snide and sarcastic. You are EXTREMELY sharp, so I trust that you got the TRUE meaning of my statement made in response to Racer’s comment.

Sorry if you’re offended. Meant no harm. I’m one of your biggest fans.

LooLoo I was not the least offended. Naturally, I was very much relieved to learn (early on thankfully) that Fogen was not a Jew. We have enough problems without having a murderer for a public standard-bearer! But I just hopped in sensing my riff.

Oh here’s one of my favorite stories. I had friends who, although Jewish, were not very religious. At a time of marital strife, the wife became ultra ultra-Orthodox and the husband responded by becoming anti-ultra-Orthodox. On the way to their separation, the wife joined a synagogue with a charismatic ultra-Orthodox politically right-wing Rabbi and she began to refer to his teachings at all times. Husband couldn’t stand it but remained “respectful” to a certain extent. Then the Rabbi opened a new synagogue in town and the wife helped organize it. The husband was giving away a lot of his older furniture (wife had already moved to her own apt.) and wife asked if the Rabbi could come to pick up those things for the many rooms of the new building the synagogue would occupy, and husband said yes. Husband had an employee at the house named “Christian Zimmerman” who would help the Rabbi load up the van to take the furniture away.

Arrives the Rabbi, and the young employee helps him load the van, and the employee agrees to help him UNLOAD the van at the Synagogue so they ride together to the synagogue. On the way the Rabbi says to the young man: “Christian is an unusual name for a Jew.” Christian Zimmerman replies, “I’m not a Jew; I’m Roman Catholic.” “OH!” intones the surprised clergyman.

When they arrive at the new synagogue the Rabbi’s wife scolds him for one thing after another. On the trip back from the synagogue to the employer’s (husband’s) house, Christian Zimmerman comments to the Rabbi: “See, if you were a Roman Catholic Priest you wouldn’t have to put up with THAT!”

Arias had a post conviction press conference where she stated she wants the Death Penalty. It may be a reverse psychology move being she is the manipulative creature she is.

I’m of the opinion, she may get the death penalty but the combination of a gunshot and the number of stab wounds and the slit throat will bet the factors. I thinks it is textbook cruel…..have a little fire scarecrow….

It should hardly matter what Jodi Arias “wants” if there is ANY SENSE AT ALL to the death penalty. It should only have to do with what the society NEEDS. But that is, sadly, not the case with respect to any death sentence cases in any death sentence states. I once heard it said (and I was actually proud to read this horrible sentence): “Jews! Jews can’t be on a death sentence jury! They’re likely to oppose death sentences period; some of them even opposed it for Adolph Eichmann!”

That was said by a pro-death-sentence judge in a secret (unconstitutional) conversation with a prosecutor, later revealed by that same prosecutor in HIS OWN MOTION to relent with respect to a defendant HE RAILROADED! The case blew my MIND! Of course, nowadays I think this quotation from that (now deceased) judge might not be applicable (sadly, sadly) but still, think of it!

By the way, I opposed the death sentence for Adolph Eichmann but that’s an old story. I would have sentenced him to hearing the stories of survivors of the Holocaust for eight hours a day while he was confined and unable to stop listening, for the rest of his natural life, while he was treated humanely, well fed, housed properly, and given appropriate medical attention, all at state expense, to which anybody could contribute to help pay for his upkeep. I would not give him “days off” unless the narrators (who would be entitled to as much time as they wanted to be narrators) chose to give him “days off” in observation of THEIR OWN chosen holidays. (That is, if there were no volunteer narrators for a certain day in observance of some religious holiday, he could have a “de facto” day off but no “days off” for his own reasons.) The narrators would be utterly protected from contact with him unless they wanted to watch (through one-way glass unless they chose two-way glass to be seen if they wanted that) him hearing them. A simultaneous translator would translate whatever they said in whatever language they spoke so that he would hear it all in German constantly.

I’ve been biting my tongue. Instead I will say my piece before shutting up. The LAW that protects our SECULAR society does not CARE and is NOT responsible for anybody’s “redemption”. That is purely a religious issue, that can and should be done regardless of where one is. The LAW protects the boundaries so that we can HAVE freedom to pursue our goals, including redemption if that is our wish. If I were appointed to administer the death penalty as a representative of our society’s laws, I would do so. I would be efficient, quick and painless. I would do it without mailce or joy. I would mourn the need but then think about the innocents that I protect by my actions and take solace in that. Killing someone should NOT easy; I’m not saying it should be. What I am saying is that sometimes it is necessary, and hence should not be shied away from because of vague religious concerns. Sociopathy has no cure. Neither does pedophilia. The more we learn about people’s psyche, the more we can realize that caging a Dahlmer, or Arias or Sandusky will NOT result in ANY rehabilitation, remorse or revelation. Where is the “kindness” is caging these people for decades upon decades? Like ANY form of punishment, there is not a one-size-fits-all that will work. Too many emotions enter into these discussions on BOTH sides of the issue. Doing away with the death penalty will not result in more “redemption” because “finding Jesus” becomes a ploy to avoid responsibility and penance.

Don’t remind me of Eichmann, Malisha. from a postwar German perspective they seemed everywhere. You only needed to dig a bit. Neither did it help to differentiate between party members and non party members. One of Adenauer’s closest aids was kept out of the trial by a little deal between Adenauer and Ben Gurion. Globke had not been a Nazi member but already in 1932 he had written a law for Prussia that forbade Jewish Germans to change their family names. Later he was involved with the Nuremberg Laws. Did you know that apart from being paid by the Israeli state Eichman’s German attorney Servatius was not only paid by the Israeli state but additionally be a gray network of old Nazis. Servatius wasn’t a party member either, but he knew quite well were the money came from.

Yep…..My dads side of the family who stayed in Germany lost everything to the Nazis. Several small dept. stores and quite a bit of wealth.

That was a systematic money acquisition machine, but you will be surprised to what extend beyond the party the German everybody took the “spoils”, these lists still exist partially. At one Jewish people had to leave their flats, the little still left was eagerly taken, quite aware who the former owners must have been. Most had lost their jobs years before.

When I moved to Cologne in 1988 I came across a little shop celebrating its 50th anniversary. Hmm? Yes, that was such a shop. The former owners did not survive.

The most horrible story that haunts me is an old couple that lived close to here in the Rhineland. The man had been arrested, the wife got him out again with the help of visa for them. But then they somehow didn’t. ultimately the traces lead to Auschwitz. Impossible to find out anything in between. I have no idea if they prevented them to leave, or if the felt too old and tired. It was after all their country too.

I can assure you I loved the way the Rothschild’s and their lawyers tricked the Nazis when I read Raul Hilberg. At least one family. I think they had one of the most desired possessions: steel production in Austria. But I forget how they managed do it.

I love Hilberg, may he RIP, interestingly Hannah Arendt was one of his female arch enemies. Her task was to read his thesis and suggest it for publication, his still standard. I think she only suggested one part of it for publication, but later relied quite a bit on his research in her Eichman in Jerusalem. I like her too, but I really wondered about that decision. He had to find a sponsor to be able to publish it. There is a strange nexus of suppressing the topic between Germany the US and I think somehow Israel too at that time.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned, Eichman was only the tip of the iceberg that was fed to the public. The Germans and the US had known all along where he was. National interests and secrecy, you know. After the Suez crisis the Israeli’s have learned too that it’s better to shred up some documents, just as France and Great Britain did.

Am still amazed by defendant’s post conviction interview from a holding cell with local TV. Both the fact that it occurred (??!!??!!??) … and defendant’s manipulative (IMO) call for death, based on her alleged notion that the needle would free her from jury control

Overall, I oppose the death penalty if for no other reason than the extended appellate process is way too expensive for taxpayers to shoulder. Also, when the jury gets it wrong and the innocent are railroaded (see Pitts & Lee in Florida, thankfully later freed), there’s no re-do after the chair is plugged in and cranked up. Life without parole allows for rectifying miscarriage in justice when, for instance, DNA evidence contradicts a conviction.

Sitting on death row would bring Arias more prison amenities, so to speak, than being a run-of-the-mill lifer. I, personally, would like to see her relegated to a dark, damp cell for life without such easy access to media. Let Arias be forgotten. Just like the fate awaiting Fogen.

Providing 3 hots, a cot, healthcare, legal assistance, psychological care, dental care, utilities, etc, etc, etc, for 65 or more years is more expensive than death row! Either way, the “3 HOLE WONDER” is gonna cost us major cash!

I wonder how long it WILL be before we learn that several prison guards have been stepping in to fill her gaping VOID (s)?

Just how many of us would lose sleep after Jodi has been ……”put down”?

Mandelbaum — Don’t be so sure. Actually, three hots and a cot, healthcare, etc. for life is CHEAPER than a decade or so of death row machinations, where the tab adds up fasty. (Don’t have at fingertips at the moment, but this has been borne out in studies, breaking down costs state by state.)

GIven how things went for Travis, dumb would be the prison guard or matron availing themselves of her charms.

Mandelbaum, I understand your sentiments. On the one hand, it can be immoral to calculate human life (no matter how depraved) in terms of cost to taxpayers. It somehow seems jaded. But the, OTOH, there also is the nagging question of why solid citizens should pay so heftily for Jodi’s comfort & upkeep, for the remainder of her life.

At a time when per annum (max & death row) incarceration is equivalent in cost to a year at Harvard, something sticks in my craw that taxpayers have to fork over this ungodly amount of money for Jodi and for others who are outright predators in society. Hard-earned tax dollars earmarked to provide Jodi & others with the long list of care and comfort? No doubt, in the next 2-3 months, Jodi will ensnare some blathering dooofus, having cherry-picked through her bevy of proposals, and be married shortly.

Ms. Arias is going to die…..eventually. Why not sooner rather than later? She offers nothing to humanity. What she did to Travis (the person she LOVED the most in the world) was abominable! I know I may be the ONLY one on this excellent blog that feels this way, but I feel that she should be put to death.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that it won’t bring Travis back to the family that “really” loves him, but neither will allowing her to live.

Just how many of us would lose sleep after Jodi has been ……”put down”?

just need to say that i object to any language which dehumanizes even the most heinous of criminals. i agree with the verdict in this case, i suspect arias is a sociopath and must be removed from society. i live in this country and must accept that we execute criminals even though i actively protest such.

language which dehumanizes any fellow human such as ‘put down’ as one would a sick or wounded animal strikes me as a giant step towards the very sickness arias displayed.

Has anyone ever seen an interview after a conviction like this? AZ may be even more bizarre than Florida, even though it doesn’t have a “sunshine law.” I’m surprised the justice system would allow it. Only in America, I suspect.

In short , no. As stated above, I was amazed. Typically the freshly convicted are handcuffed , fingerprinted (sometimes with courtooom cameras rolling in Florida) and hauled back to jail to await sentencing. Their attorneys briefly express their disappointment and often vow an appeal. Prosecutors take a victory lap and deliver a “justie was done” speech.

In Pennsylvania, Jerry Sandusky only spoke through his lawyer for the longest of times he certainly wasn’t allowed to babble from a holding cell immediately after conviction.

LeaNder mention the waywardness and defiance of Arias. But you have to wonder WHO allowed this. Maricopa County’s Sheriff Joe, he of pink underwear for prisoners fame? Some misguided low -level jailer? Strange.

In my opinion (admittedly, an opinion informed by my opposition to the death penalty in any form), having a “death sentence jury” chosen to deliberate on the guilt phase is per se unconstitutional.

“A jury of [the defendant’s] peers” should be just that. Nobody should have to have a preconceived notion about a particular single issue (such as “the death sentence [is/is not] right”) to get on a jury. Anyone who would agree that the death sentence is NOT right might be more likely to be defense-leaning, of course, but anyone who would agree that the death entence IS right might be more likely to be prosecution-leaning by the same token.

The fact that a “death sentence qualified jury” has been empaneled affects the outcome of the guilt phase as well as the sentencing phase. BTW I think Jodi Arias committed first-degree murder but I also think she was nuts. That’s all I have to say.

Apparently the jurors serving at the Arias trial are not bothered by dispensing death.

this is usually brought out by either a juror questionnaire or voir dire. i know that i was excused as a potential jurist for a capital case in san francisco for precisely that reason, as it is the only thing either the prosecution or defense heard from me … unless there was something generally undesirable about my looks or demeanor. quite simply, i said up front when asked if there was any reason why i felt i could not participate, i stated that i did not feel capable of advocating for execution and was promptly dismissed.

I agree, Malisha. I find it distasteful that the state of AZ places the responsibility for the death penalty on the jury. Something doesn’t sit right with me about that. And they screen and dismiss potential jurors if they’re opposed to the death penalty.

Hmmmm.

In the broadest sense, anyone who takes a life in anger is at least temporarily insane as they do so, IMHO. The more brutal and senseless the murder, the more someone is unhinged. What to do, what to do.

Good point, Malisha, I guess that would have slipped my mind if you hadn’t reminded me. Could this be a reason why the death penalty is still so highly accepted that the average man and woman in the street since they can decide on death or living? Could that be a factor. This is not meant to be a value judgment. Conscience is a rather personal affair. Personally I wouldn’t like to live with such a decision. It’s something pretty final after all, and cannot be reversed.

But really odd that a special percentage of citizen are denied their rights to be jurors. So it seems as if there may be a systemic factor involved. This is really odd and very undemocratic, or as you write unconstitutional. How old is that law?

This seems clearly a crime of passion, it shows the typical overkill pattern. Admittedly I did not pay too much attention. But this woman clearly must have a serious psychological problem.

Jury service is considered an obligation of citizenship, not a right. I also consider it a right, of course, but it is not a self-executing right. A prosecutor or defense attorney can rule somebody off a jury on a “peremptory challenge” without stating any reason for that.

The “no Jews on the jury” case was an example of that. The judge advised the prosecutor to use his challenges to knock anybody Jewish off the jury. Strangely enough the “Zimmerman name factor” played into the case; there was reference to a juror named “Shapiro” who was NOT JEWISH but who was apparently excluded based on the mistaken belief that she was. HAHA HA HA HA!!

We don’t get opinions? We are allowed opinions, but opinions are irrelevant? It can’t be we don’t get, in the sense are not told, since if there is a Supreme Court judgment we may be able to read the argument.

a) every American citizen (age clause) can be a juror
b) jurors loose this rights, if in a murder one case they are not prepared to sentence a person to death. Since then the execution of their rights infringes with the right of some Americans, not limited to the prosecution, to see that person put to death, or at least know s/he is killed.

BDL, I DO get an opinion on what is and is not constitutional, actually. I can’t do anything ABOUT my opinion; the US Supreme Court can DISAGREE with my opinion and their decision is “controlling” for all the courts in the land, but my opinion can indeed differ from that. I differed from their decision in the Dred Scott case, in the Joshua DeShaney case, and in Bush v. Gore, and many MANY other cases and I stick to my own (right or wrong) opinion about what the Constitution says and means. They can change what takes place in my life but they can’t change my opinion, not by their rulings, anyway.

As to whether it’s Constitutional or not, the US Supreme Court says that it is.

Could be in 100 years (it didn’t even take THAT LONG in the case of the Dred Scott decision) that opinion will be changed in the US SUpreme Court itself. I have no idea. My opinion will not last long enough for me to find out. But it will probably last long enough for me to continue to hold it until I either die or lose my powers of rational thinking.

IMO, the jury will decide to give Jodi the death penalty. 29 stab wounds with about 9 in the back is bad enough. To cut the throat so deep that it almost decapitates is beyond cruel. There are reports of bruises on Travis’ legs as well that the ME might present.